1-1 Civil Cover Sheet€¦ · 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 375 False Claims Act 120 Marine 310 Airplane 530 General 720 Labor/Management

ILND 44 (Rev. 09/07/18) CIVIL COVER SHEET The ILND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (See instructions on next page of this form.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (Except in U.S. plaintiff cases) (In U.S. plaintiff cases only)

Note: In land condemnation cases, use the location of the tract of land involved.

(c) Attorneys (firm name, address, and telephone number) Attorneys (if known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Check one box, only.) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (For Diversity Cases Only.) (Check one box, only for plaintiff and one box for defendant.)

1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF Plaintiff (U.S. Government not a party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4

of Business in This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5 Defendant (Indicate citizenship of parties in Item III.) of Business in Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Check one box, only.) CONTRACT TORTS PRISONER PETITIONS LABOR OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 375 False Claims Act 120 Marine 310 Airplane 530 General 720 Labor/Management Relations 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 3729 (a)) 130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product 367 Health Care/ 740 Railway Labor Act 400 State Reapportionment 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability Pharmaceutical 751 Family and Medical 410 Antitrust 150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Slander Personal Injury Leave Act 430 Banks and Banking & Enforcement of Judgment 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation 450 Commerce 151 Medicare Act Liability 368 Asbestos Personal Injury 791 Employee Retirement 460 Deportation 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student 340 Marine Product Liability

510 Motions to Vacate Sentence 530 General 535 Death Penalty Habeas Corpus: 540 Mandamus & Other 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee – Conditions of

Income Security Act 470 Racketeer Influenced and Loans (Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability Confinement Corrupt Organizations 153 Recovery of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 480 Consumer Credit 160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle PERSONAL PROPERTY PROPERTY RIGHTS 485 Telephone Consumer 190 Other Contract Product Liability 370 Other Fraud 820 Copyrights Protection Act (TCPA) 195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury 371 Truth in Lending 830 Patent 490 Cable/Sat TV 196 Franchise 362 Personal Injury - 380 Other Personal 835 Patent – Abbreviated 850 Securities/Commodities/

Medical Malpractice Property Damage New Drug Application Exchange 385 Property Damage 840 Trademark 890 Other Statutory Actions

Product Liability 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS BANKRUPTCY FORFEITURE/PENALTY SOCIAL SECURITY 895 Freedom of Information Act 210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 625 Drug Related Seizure 861 HIA (1395ff) 896 Arbitration 220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 of Property 21 USC 881 862 Black Lung (923) 899 Administrative Procedure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 690 Other 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Act/Review or Appeal of 240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ 864 SSID Title XVI Agency Decision 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations IMMIGRATION 865 RSI (405(g)) 950 Constitutionality of 290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 462 Naturalization State Statutes

Employment Application 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 463 Habeas Corpus - Alien FEDERAL TAXES Other Detainee (Prisoner Petition) 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 448 Education 465 Other Immigration or Defendant)

Actions 871 IRS—Third Party 26 USC 7609

V. ORIGIN (Check one box, only.) Transferred from Another District (specify)

Multidistrict Litigation Direct File

1 Original Proceeding

2 Removed from State Court

3 Remanded from Appellate Court

4 Reinstated or Reopened

5 6 Multidistrict Litigation

8

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Enter U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing andwrite a brief statement of cause.)

VII. PREVIOUS BANKRUPTCY MATTERS (For nature of suit 422 and 423, enter thecase number and judge for any associated bankruptcy matter previously adjudicated by a judge of this Court.Use a separate attachment if necessary.)

VIII. REQUESTED INCOMPLAINT:

Check if this is a class action Under rule 23, F.R.CV.P.

Demand $ Check Yes only if demanded in complaint. Jury Demand: Yes No

IX. RELATED CASE(S)IF ANY

(See instructions)

Judge Case Number

X. Is this a previously dismissed or remanded case? Yes No If yes, Case # Name of Judge Date Signature of attorney of record

Salem Media of Illinois, LLC, and Amy Jacobson J.B. Pritzker, in his official capacity as governoor, and Jordan Abudayyeh, in her official capacity as press secretary for the governor

Ventura County, California Cook County, Illinois

Daniel Suhr & Jeff Schwab, Liberty Justice Center, 190 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1500, Chicago Il 60603, 312-263-7668, [email protected]

Office of the Attorney General of Illinois

■

■

42 U.S.C. 1983 - vindication of 1st and 14th Amdt. rights.

June 1, 2020 /s/ Daniel R. Suhr

Case: 1:20-cv-03212 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/01/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:13

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SALEM MEDIA OF ILLINOIS, LLC, and AMY JACOBSON,

Plaintiffs,

No. 1:20-cv-3212 v. J.B. PRITZKER, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois, and JORDAN ABUDAYYEH, in her official capacity as the Governor’s press secretary,

Complaint

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

1. Amy Jacobson is an award-winning journalist at one of Chicago’s

largest news/talk radio stations with a well-earned reputation for asking tough

questions of Chicago’s elected officials and decision-makers. After she consistently

pushed for transparency and accountability from Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker

during his press conferences in recent weeks, particularly asking fair but strong

questions about the First Family, he struck back by revoking her press credentials.

2. This is blatantly unconstitutional. A public official may not target

particular news media organizations or journalists for exclusion from access made

generally available to other media. The First Amendment guarantees the freedoms

of speech and of the press, and those rights are incorporated against the states. The

Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees citizens equal protection of the laws,

Case: 1:20-cv-03212 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/20 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1

2

including equal treatment by their government, and due process, which requires fair

notice and consideration before the government may revoke access. The First

Amendment also guarantees editorial independence to Jacobson’s employer, Salem

Media.

3. All four of those clauses are violated in this case as a government official

selectively denies access to a journalist based on the content of her speech. See

Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 1986); Am. Broad. Cos. v. Cuomo,

570 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d Cir. 1977); Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124, 129 (D.C. Cir.

1977). Twice in recent years federal courts have struck down similar revocations of

press passes for other reporters. CNN v. Trump, No. 1:18-cv-02610-TJK, Dkt. 20, Nov.

16, 20181 (D.D.C.); Karem v. Trump, 404 F. Supp. 3d 203, 218 (D.D.C. 2019).

4. Salem Media and Jacobson therefore bring this suit under 42 U.S.C. §

1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Amy Jacobson is a career journalist currently with AM 560

news/talk radio who works in Cook County, Illinois, and lives in Cook County,

Illinois.

6. Plaintiff Salem Media of Illinois, LLC, is a wholly owned subsidiary of

Salem Media Group, Inc., located in Camarillo, California. Salem Media Group is

America’s leading radio broadcaster, Internet content provider, and magazine and

1 Transcript of oral ruling available online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CNN_v._Trump_transcript_2018-11-16.pdf.


3

book publisher targeting audiences interested in Christian and family-themed

content and conservative values. Salem owns and operates 96 radio stations, with

59 stations in the nation’s top 25 top markets – and 28 stations in the top 10

markets, including WIND-AM 560.

7. Defendant J.B. Pritzker is governor of the State of Illinois and oversees

the Office of the Governor, including its communications department. He lives and

works in Cook County, Illinois. His address for service of process is Office of the

Governor, 100 W. Randolph, 16-100, Chicago IL 60601.

8. Defendant Jordan Abudayyeh is press secretary to the Governor of the

State of Illinois. She works in Cook County, Illinois. Her address for service of

process is Office of the Governor, 100 W. Randolph, 16-100, Chicago IL 60601.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This case raises claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of

the United State Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has subject-matter

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

10. Venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2) because the

Defendants are headquartered in and a substantial portion of the events giving rise

to the claims occurred in the Northern District of Illinois.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. Salem Media’s WIND-AM 560 “The Answer” is a major news/talk radio

station that serves the Chicago media market. AM 560’s mission is to provide its


4

listeners with news, opinion, and insight. See “About Us,” 560TheAnswer.com.2

Broadcasting at 5,000 watts, its content reaches listeners in Illinois, northwest

Indiana, and southeast Wisconsin. It has over 150,000 weekly cumulative listeners

according to Nielsen ratings.

12. Amy Jacobson is cohost of “Chicago’s Morning Answer” and a field

journalist on AM 560. After graduating Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Iowa

with a degree in broadcasting, Jacobson worked as a reporter for TV stations in

Detroit, Tucson, and El Paso before returning to her home state of Illinois and

WMAQ (NBC-5) Chicago in 1996. While at WMAQ, Jacobson won a regional Emmy

Award and was nominated for six more. In 2008 she transitioned to reporting on

radio, first at WLS and since 2010 at AM 560. In addition to four hours of airtime

every weekday morning on AM 560, she also reports news and opinion on her social

media channels.

13. Over the past several months, Governor Pritzker has held numerous

press conferences to address the COVID-19 pandemic open to members of the press

corps. Jacobson has been a regular attender and participant in those press

conferences since March 20, 2020. During those press conferences, Jacobson has

asked numerous questions challenging the Governor’s response to the pandemic and

how the Governor’s family has acted while other Illinoisans are following his order

to remain sheltered-in-place.

2 Available online at https://560theanswer.com/content/all/aboutus.


5

14. On Friday, May 15, Jacobson was the first journalist to report that

Governor Pritzker’s family was staying at their 1,000-acre horse farm in Wisconsin,

after previously staying on a family farm in Florida. “Pritzker bans AM 560’s

Jacobson from daily press conferences, claims she isn’t ‘impartial,’” Prairie State

Wire (May 19, 2020). 3

15. The story struck a nerve, with coverage by numerous statewide news

outlets. See, e.g., “Pritzker family travel to Wisconsin during stay-at-home order,”

WICS (May 18, 2020)4; Rick Pearson and Jamie Munks, “Gov. J.B. Pritzker

acknowledges family members have been in Florida and Wisconsin during

coronavirus shutdown,” Chicago Tribune (May 15, 2020).5

16. On Saturday, May 16, 2020, Jacobson was one of several speakers at a

rally in Chicago in support of reopening Illinois.

17. On Monday, May 18, 2020 — at the very next press conference after

Jacobson broke the story about Governor Pritzker’s family staying in Wisconsin —

Jacobson was blocked from asking questions. Later that day Governor Pritzker’s

press secretary Defendant Jordan Abudayyeh wrote in an email to Jacobson, “This

weekend you attended and spoke at a political rally to fire up the crowd opposing

the Governor’s policies to combat COVID-19. That rally was attended by people

holding hateful Nazi imagery. An impartial journalist would not have attended that

3 Available online at https://prairiestatewire.com/stories/537599785-pritzker-bans-am-560-s-jacobson-from-daily-press-conferences-claims-she-isn-t-impartial. 4 Available online at https://newschannel20.com/news/local/pritzker-family-cross-state-border-during-stay-at-home-order-report-says. 5 Available online at https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-coronavirus-pritzker-family-whereabouts-20200515-rx5qkabrabg67j3dfkllbowntu-story.html.


6

rally in that capacity and therefore you will no longer be invited to participate as an

impartial journalist.”

18. When asked by another journalist about the ban on Jacobson at his

May 20, 2020, press conference, Governor Pritzker responded: “When you’re

standing up at a rally, where people are taking a political position, holding up Nazi

swastikas, holding up pictures of Hitler, and taking an extreme position as she did,

that strikes me that that’s not objective in any way. It’s not, it’s not the way you

[the reporter asking the question] act, it’s not the way your colleagues in the media

act, who are reporters. That is not a reporter. She represents a talk show that has a

particular point of view, we allowed her to ask questions because once upon a time

she was a reporter, but she proved that she is no longer a reporter.”6

19. Journalists frequently speak at public events, whether for community

organizations, universities and schools, or trade associations. Salem Media permits

its journalists to undertake public speaking events like the rally to connect with its

listeners in-person and to potentially gain new listeners among like-minded

audience members. Moreover, Jacobson’s comments at the rally were consistent

with the “point of view” that she had been expressing for weeks on her show.

20. The Governor’s comments show his action was in retaliation for what

he regards as her “extreme positions” and her “particular point of view.” And the

fact that the revocation of her access came after she had already been sharing those

6 Archived video of press conference available at https://livestream.com/blueroomstream/events/9107223. Transcript of answer available at https://capitolfax.com/2020/05/20/pritzker-changes-course-state-will-allow-limited-outdoor-seating-at-bars-restaurants-in-phase-3/.


7

positions and views for weeks on her radio show indicates her rally attendance was

a pretext to remove a troublesome or contrarian reporter from the press corps.

21. Press conferences are an essential tool for journalists to do their job

collecting and reporting the news. Borreca v. Fasi, 369 F. Supp. 906 (D. Haw. 1974)

(targeted exclusion of a disfavored journalist from press conferences). By targeting

Jacobson for intentional and selective exclusion from future press conferences, the

Governor’s office impedes her ability to report the news in a timely, thorough

manner.

22. Journalists frequently provided commentary and analysis in print, on

air, and at public speaking engagements. Jacobson’s remarks at the Reopen Illinois

rally to share her views are no different from numerous other journalists who blend

news and opinion in their reporting, like a TV show host or newspaper columnist.

Numerous other journalists who retain their press passes from the Governor’s office

also provide opinion and commentary on public events, which shows that the

revocation of Jacobson’s pass is either pretextual or content-based retaliation and

viewpoint discrimination (or both).

COUNT I

By targeting Jacobson for exclusion from generally available information and press conferences, Defendants

are violating Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to freedom of the press.

23. The allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs are incorporated

herein by reference.


8

24. The right to freedom of the press in the First Amendment has been

incorporated to and made enforceable against the states through the Fourteenth

Amendment guarantee of Due Process. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 707 (1931).

25. The Governor’s targeted exclusion of Jacobson from press conferences

and other materials otherwise generally available to the news media violates the

right of equal access inherent in the freedom of the press.

26. Salem Media and Jacobson are entitled to an injunction under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 ordering Defendants to immediately end their pattern of behavior

barring her from equal access to information and press conferences on the same

basis as her colleagues in the press corps.

COUNT II

By targeting Jacobson for exclusion from generally available information and press conferences,

Defendants are violating Plaintiffs’ First Amendment free speech right.



28. If the Governor’s decision is actually based on her attendance at the

Reopen Illinois rally, then it is retaliation for the content of her speech and

discrimination based on the critical editorial viewpoint she expressed.

29. If attendance at the rally is in fact a pretextual reason to remove her

from the press corps after her tough but fair questions about the First Family, then

it is retaliation for the content of her speech and discrimination based on her

reporting.


9

30. Retaliating against a journalist and her news organization based on

her editorial stances and tough questions, preventing her from speaking or asking

questions in press conferences and gaggles, violates the First Amendment’s free

speech clause. See United Teachers of Dade v. Stierheim, 213 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (S.D.

Fl. 2002). The government may not require journalists to hold a particular point-of-

view or to remain impartial to the government’s actions. Nor may the government

forbid journalists from attending a rally, parade, march, or demonstration where a

particular point-of-view is being expressed. In this sense it is an unconstitutional

condition, making editorial silence or agreement with the Governor a prerequisite

for continued access.

COUNT III

By targeting Jacobson for exclusion from generally available information and press conferences, Defendants are violating

Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws.



32. The equal protection clause requires that a state government grants

equal treatment to its citizens and not discriminate amongst them, especially in

respect of their fundamental rights. In this context, it requires that all journalists

have equal access to information generally available to the news media. See McCoy

v. Providence Journal Co., 190 F.2d 760, 766 (1st Cir. 1951); Getty Images News

Servs. v. Dept. of Defense, 193 F.Supp.2d 112 (D.D.C. 2002); Ludtke v. Kuhn, 461

F.Supp. 86 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).


10

33. The targeted exclusion from equal access of Jacobson and Salem Media

by Defendants denies them the equal protection of the laws to which they are

entitled.

COUNT IV

By targeting Jacobson for exclusion from generally available information and press conferences

without clear standards or fair consideration, Defendants are violating Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of laws.



35. The due process clause requires that a state government provide all

journalists with prior notice of the standards of professional conduct by which it will

judge their press-credentialing. When a government official decides to revoke a

press credential, he must extend fair notice and consideration based on those

standards before entering a final decision. Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 130-31; Karem, 404

F. Supp. 3d 203.

36. Jacobson was not provided with prior notice of the standards or

policies used by the Governor’s Office for press credentialing, and Defendant

Abudayyah’s email gestured at an amorphous standard with no opportunity of

review before a final decision was entered.


11

COUNT V

By targeting Jacobson for exclusion from generally available information and press conferences without clear standards or fair

consideration, Defendants are interfering with Salem Media’s editorial independence in violation of the First Amendment’s freedom of the press.



38. Separate from the shared right of journalists and their employing news

organizations to equal access to official newsmakers, Salem Media as a news

organization has a separate right to make editorial choices about which of its

employee journalists cover different stories. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v.

Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974); Turner Broad. Sys. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 653

(1994); McDermott ex rel. NLRB v. Ampersand Publ’g, LLC, 593 F.3d 950, 962 (9th

Cir. 2010). By excluding Jacobson from the press corps, Defendants are violating

Salem Media’s right to make independent editorial choices about what stories its

reporters cover and when and how its journalists can engage in the public square.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs Salem Media of Illinois, LLC, and Amy Jacobson respectfully

request that this Court:

a. Declare that retaliating against Amy Jacobson by barring her

from the Governor’s press conferences based on the content of her speech and

views violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause;


12

b. Declare that the targeted exclusion of Amy Jacobson from the

Governor’s press conferences violates the First Amendment’s free speech and

free press clauses, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause;

c. Declare that the exclusion of Amy Jacobson was made without

due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;

d. Declare that the exclusion of Amy Jacobson violates Salem

Media’s editorial independence in violation of the First Amendment’s free

press clause;

e. Enjoin Governor Pritzker from excluding Amy Jacobson from

generally available information and press conferences;

f. Award Plaintiffs their costs and attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1988; and

g. Award any further relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled.

Dated: June 1, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

SALEM MEDIA OF ILLINOIS, LLC and AMY JACOBSON

By: /s/ Daniel R. Suhr Daniel R. Suhr Jeffrey M. Schwab Liberty Justice Center 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone (312) 263-7668 Facsimile (312) 263-7702 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs


1



Plaintiffs,

No. 1:20-cv-3212 v. J.B. PRITZKER, et al., MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Defendants.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, Plaintiffs respectfully move for preliminary relief in the form of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to avoid imminent and irreparable injury, as set forth in the attached supporting memorandum of law and declarations.

Plaintiffs will immediately contact attorneys for Defendants in the hope of avoiding the need for an ex parte hearing and order, and will advise the Court as promptly as possible of the results of that outreach.


SALEM MEDIA OF ILLINOIS, LLC AMY JACOBSON

By: /s/ Daniel R. Suhr Daniel R. Suhr Jeffrey M. Schwab Liberty Justice Center 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone (312) 263-7668 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs



SALEM MEDIA OF ILLINOIS, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. 1:20-cv-3212 v. J.B. PRITZKER, et al., Memorandum of Law Supporting

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

Defendants.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

Facts .................................................................................................................................. 1

Standard of Review .......................................................................................................... 5

Argument .......................................................................................................................... 6

I. Salem Media and Jacobson suffer irreparable harm by being excluded from the Governor’s press conferences, and traditional legal remedies are inadequate. ............. 6

II. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims. ............ 7

III. Plaintiffs and the public will suffer substantial harm without preliminary relief, unlike the Defendants, who will only suffer minor inconvenience at most. ............... 15

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 15


1

INTRODUCTION

The First Amendment prevents a government official from selectively targeting particular

journalists for exclusion from the press corps based on their coverage or the content of their

editorial speech. In this case, Governor J.B. Pritzker has banned journalist Amy Jacobson from

continuing to participate in press conferences open to other journalists based on her speech and

reporting. Jacobson and her employer Salem Media are entitled to a temporary restraining order

and preliminary injunction preventing the governor from prohibiting Jacobson from participating

in press conferences based on her First Amendment rights. See e.g., American Broadcasting Cos.

v. Cuomo, 570 F.2d 1080 (2nd Cir. 1977) (granting TRO in an oral ruling from the bench restoring

ABC access); Karem v. Trump, 404 F. Supp. 3d 203, 218 (D.D.C. 2019) (granting preliminary

injunction restoring press pass of magazine reporter); CNN v. Trump, No. 1:18-cv-02610-TJK,

Dkt. 20 TRO Hearing (D.D.C.)1 (granting TRO restoring the press pass of cable news reporter).

FACTS

Amy Jacobson is a veteran journalist with a well-earned reputation for asking the tough

questions of Illinois’ elected officials and decision-makers. Educated as a broadcast journalist at

the University of Iowa, Jacobson spent a decade as a television reporter before transitioning to

radio in 2008 (Jacobson Affidavit 2). While on television, Jacobson won a regional Emmy Award

and was nominated for an additional six regional Emmy’s (Jacobson Affidavit 5). First at WLS

and now at Salem Media’s AM 560, Jacobson brings news and insight to her listeners across the

Chicago area. As the cohost of “Chicago’s Morning Answer,” Jacobson spends four hours every

morning providing her unique blend of news reporting, interviews, and opinion (Jacobson

1 Transcript available online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CNN_v._Trump_transcript_2018-11-16.pdf.


2

Affidavit 7). She also contributes to the station’s other shows and news updates as a field reporter

(Jacobson Affidavit 8). She also makes and breaks news on her social media platforms (Jacobson

Affidavit 10). Her employer Salem Media relies on her as one of their top reporters in the Chicago

media market, and gives her its prized morning drive-time slot because listeners rely on her for

news, opinion, and insight into Illinois politics (Jacobson Affidavit 9; Reisman Affidavit 8).

J.B. Pritzker is Governor of Illinois. He regularly holds press conferences to answer

questions from news media, and has done so with particular frequency during the COVID-19

pandemic. Jordan Abudayyeh is his press secretary.

Jacobson has been a regular and active participant in the Governor’s COVID-19 press

conferences (Jacobson Affidavit 11-21). During these press conferences, she has several times

asked probing questions about the Governor’s policies and the First Family’s travels outside

Illinois at a time when residents are ordered to shelter-in-place by the Governor. On May 14, for

instance, she asked about the Governor’s furlough of over 1,000 prisoners during the pandemic,

including 64 convicted murderers. (Jacobson Affidavit 12). The previous day, she asked about the

disconnect between the Governor’s legal position in various COVID-related cases and a 2001

Attorney General opinion given the opposite interpretation of his powers under the emergency

management act (Jacobson Affidavit 13). These questions spurred Jacobson’s reporting for AM

560.

On April 18, Jacobson pressed the Governor on the difference between his plan and the

President’s plan. She asked two follow-up questions about Chicago lakefront access for bikers and

joggers, after which the governor’s press secretary cut off in-person questioning. Abudayyeh

appeared to become agitated with Jacobson’s line of questioning, and said after the press


3

conference that “things in these briefings are going to change” (Jacobson Affidavit 14-15).

Jacobson approached her for clarification, and she did not elaborate (Id.).

The following day, April 19, Abudayyeh notified all reporters via email that the afternoon’s

press conference was moving to a pooled coverage system “to further ensure we’re appropriately

following social distancing guidelines” (Jacobson Affidavit 19; Ex. 1). Abudayyeh put this system

in place after a month of in-person briefings where reporters were spaced out in the room. Under

the pool system, the press room was re-configured to end the physical presence of all reporters

except two pool reporters, one for print and one for broadcast. Radio did not receive separate pool

representation. Under the new system, non-pool reporters were required to submit questions to the

pool reporters, who would then relay the questions to the Governor and his staff during the

briefings (Jacobson Affidavit 17-19). Under this new system, Jacobson was invited to participate

live in the press conferences via videoconference technology (WebX) and submitted her question

to be read by the pool reporters to the Governor, who continued to visibly react to her lines of

inquiry (Id.). The new system made it much harder to ask follow-up questions (Id.).

On Friday, May 15, Governor Pritzker acknowledged that his family had been residing in

Florida, not Illinois, for the first several weeks of the outbreak. “Pritzker Says Wife and Daughter

Were in Florida Before Stay-at-Home Order,” NBC-5 9 (May 15, 2020).2 Later that same day,

Jacobson broke the news that the First Family was remaining overnight at their horse farm in

Wisconsin (Jacobson Affidavit 22; Ex. 2).

On Saturday, May 16, Jacobson was a speaker at a “Reopen Illinois” rally in Chicago

(Jacobson Affidavit 23). Like other journalists, Jacobson sometimes speaks at public events and

on news/talk programs other than her own to share her reporting and editorial views (Jacobson

2 Available online at https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/pritzker-says-wife-and-daughter-were-in-florida-before-stay-at-home-order/2272975/.


4

Affidavit 24-25).3 She undertakes these speaking engagements within station guidelines; her

employer sees public speaking as a good opportunity for her to build their brand and listenership

(Reisman Affidavit 9). While at the rally, she gave remarks that repeated views she had given on

her radio show many times previously (Jacobson Affidavit 26). As often happens in large public

gatherings, a small handful of protestors showed up with signs that did not reflect the views of the

majority of the crowd, the organizers of the event, or speakers including Amy Jacobson. In this

case, several individuals held signs with imagery comparing Pritzker to Hitler or comparing

Pritzker’s stay-at-home COVID-19 orders to Nazism. On her Twitter that day Jacobson called

those signs “offensive,” saying “There is NO need for this” (Jacobson Affidavit 27; Ex. 3).

On Monday, May 18, 2020 — only three days after Jacobson broke the news that Governor

Pritzker’s family was staying in Wisconsin and at the very next press conference — Jacobson

attempted to participate in the Governor’s telephone press conference, where questions are

submitted by reporters to the two pool reporters, who read them aloud to him for a response

(Jacobson Affidavit 28). Jacobson reported on Twitter that Monday she was “BLOCKED from

@Gov Pritzker’s daily briefings” (Jacobson Affidavit 29; Ex. 4). Later that same day, Jacobson

received an email from the Governor’s press secretary, Defendant Abudayyeh: “This weekend you

attended and spoke at a political rally to fire up the crowd opposing the Governor’s policies to

combat COVID-19. That rally was attended by people holding hateful Nazi imagery. An impartial

3 See, for instance: Rich Miller (Capitol Fax), “Christmas with Rich Miller,” City Club of Chicago, available online at https://www.cityclub-chicago.org/event/2/2321/christmas-with-rich-miller (Dec. 17, 2018); Kristen McQueary (Chicago Tribune), “Insights into Illinois with Kristen McQueary,” Illinois Policy Institute, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCwCMW_Ytjo (Sept. 24, 2015); Carol Marin and Mary Ann Ahern (both of NBC-5), “The Finish Line is in Sight,” First Friday Club of Chicago, https://www.firstfridayclubchicago.org/podcasts/1611-marin-ahern (Nov. 4, 2016); Carol Marin (NBC-5), “Journalism center co-director discusses ‘apocalyptic’ election year,” DePaul University, https://depauliaonline.com/24561/news/depaul-journalism-center-co-director-discusses-apocalyptic-election-year/ (Sept. 28, 2016).


5

journalist would not have attended that rally in that capacity and therefore you will no longer be

invited to participate as an impartial journalist.” (Jacobson Affidavit 30; Exhibit 5).

Since the email, Jacobson has been blocked participating in the WebX videoconference

like other journalists (Jacobson Affidavit 31). This significantly hampers her ability to do her job

as AM 560’s reporter covering the most important story happening in Illinois right now, namely

the Governor’s ongoing response to COVID-19 (Jacobson Affidavit 32). Because Jacobson cannot

do her job, Salem Media’s AM 560 as a station is put at a competitive disadvantage (Reisman

Affidavit 10). Most importantly, her listeners and the public are deprived of the answers to the

tough but fair questions that only Jacobson has been pressing.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has set up a two-stage test for the

issuance of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Merritte v. Kessel, 561 F.

App'x 546, 548 (7th Cir. 2014) (standards of proof for TRO or PI the same). First, the movant must

show (1) irreparable harm in the period before resolution on the merits; (2) traditional legal

remedies are inadequate, and (3) there is at least some likelihood of success on the merits. HH-

Indianapolis, LLC v. Consol. City of Indianapolis, 889 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir. 2018). If a party

meets these thresholds, the court moves to “weigh[] the factors against one another, assessing

whether the balance of harms favors the moving party or whether the harm to other parties or the

public is sufficiently weighty that the injunction should be denied.” Id. Considering these three

factors, this Court should conclude that Salem Media and Jacobson have made the requisite

showings, and that the balance of harms favors their request.

When a party seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent a First Amendment violation, the

primary focus is on the likelihood of success on the merits. As to the first and second factors, “The


6

loss of First Amendment freedoms is presumed to constitute an irreparable injury for which money

damages are not adequate, and injunctions protecting First Amendment freedoms are always in the

public interest.” Christian Legal Soc’y v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2006). Finally, as to

the weighing of interests, if Salem Media and Jacobson shows their likelihood of success on the

merits, the Defendants have little interest in enforcing a decision that is likely unconstitutional.

Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc. v. Adams, 937 F.3d 973, 991 (7th Cir. 2019).

ARGUMENT

The Court should issue a preliminary injunction enjoining the Defendants from continuing

to retaliate against Salem Media and Jacobson by excluding her from equal press access. Salem

Media and Jacobson are suffering irreparable harm without an injunction because they are denied

equal access from press conferences, traditional legal remedies are inadequate to resolve this harm,

and they are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims.

I. Salem Media and Jacobson suffer irreparable harm by being excluded from the Governor’s press conferences, and traditional legal remedies are inadequate.

News is an inherently time-bound business. When reporters are prevented from reporting

the news, “each passing day may constitute a separate and cognizable infringement of the First

Amendment.” CBS v. Davis, 510 U.S. 1315, 1317 (1994) (Blackmun, J., in chambers). A reporter

and outlet’s timely access to news is essential because “the newsworthiness of a particular story is

often fleeting. To delay or postpone . . . undermines the benefit of public scrutiny and may have

the same result as complete suppression.” Grove Fresh Distribs. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d

893, 897 (7th Cir. 1994).

Salem Media and Jacobson suffer irreparable harm every day that she is barred from the

Governor’s press conferences. It is the bread-and-butter of reporting for journalists to cover these

events and to ask questions about the news, and then to share that news through their outlet. “A


7

person singled out for exclusion … is placed at an extraordinary disadvantage in his or her attempt

to compete in the ‘marketplace of ideas.’” Huminski v. Corsones, 386 F.3d 116, 146 (2d Cir. 2004).

Though she continues to work hard and regularly breaks other stories, Jacobson cannot press the

important questions which her listeners and many other news outlets find worthy of coverage.

The “loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably

constitutes irreparable injury” for purposes of the issuance of preliminary relief. Elrod v. Burns,

427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). Moreover, traditional legal remedies are inadequate — there is no way

to later make whole the lost opportunity to exercise First Amendment freedoms or to cover

important news conferences or press events. See Christian Legal Soc’y, 453 F.3d at 859.

II. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims.

Salem Media and Jacobson are likely to succeed on the merits of their First and Fourteenth

Amendment claims. At a minimum, they pass the “low threshold” that their claims have a “better

than negligible” chance of success. HH-Indianapolis, LLC, 889 F.3d at 437.

A. Salem Media and Jacobson are likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim against Defendants for violating their right to equal access to information and events. (Count I)

The First Amendment’s freedom of the press clause includes a right of equal access for all

journalists and the outlets they represent to information or events made generally available to the

press corps. Am. Broad. Cos., 570 F.2d at 1083 (“once there is a public function, public comment,

and participation by some of the media, the First Amendment requires equal access to all of the

media”); Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 1986); Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F.2d 124,

129-30 (D.C. Cir. 1977). See Courthouse News v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581, 595 n.8 (9th Cir. 2020).4

4 For these first four claims, the rights of Salem Media as a news organization and Jacobson as a reporter are basically one in the same: “the cases do not distinguish between the First Amendment rights of reporters and the media for whom they report.” Brown v. Damiani, 154 F. Supp. 2d 317, 320 n.4 (D. Conn. 2001).


8

This is an important First Amendment right which is protected by strict scrutiny. Sherrill,

569 F.2d at 130 (“such refusal must be based on a compelling governmental interest.”); United

Teachers of Dade v. Stierheim, 213 F. Supp. 2d 1368, 1375 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (same); Times-

Picayune Pub. Corp. v. Lee, Civil Action No. 88-1325, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3506, at *25 (E.D.

La. Apr. 15, 1988) (same); Borreca v. Fasi, 369 F. Supp. 906, 909 (D. Haw. 1974) (same). See

United States v. Connolly, 204 F. Supp. 2d 138, 139 (D. Mass. 2002) (“[O]nly in the most

extraordinary circumstances is the government permitted, consistent with the First Amendment, to

discriminate between members of the press in granting access . . .”).

In this instance, Jacobson has been denied the equal access guaranteed by the First

Amendment. She is prevented from participating in the Governor’s press conferences on the same

basis as all of her colleagues in the press corps.

Moreover, the Governor can present no compelling interest at stake in such a denial. She

presents no security threat to the Governor. See Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 130. Nor is this an instance

where there are simply a limited number of seats for the press on Air Force One. See Frank v.

Herter, 269 F.2d 245, 248-49 (1959) (Burger, J., concurring); Getty Images News Servs. v. DOD,

193 F. Supp. 2d 112, 120 (D.D.C. 2002). There is no obvious reason besides Jacobson’s viewpoint

and the content of her speech and reporting that would justify her exclusion.

Nor is she seeking special treatment. She acknowledges the First Amendment contains no

right to an off-the-record tidbit or an exclusive interview. See Balt. Sun Co. v. Ehrlich, 437 F.3d

410 (4th Cir. 2006); Youngstown Publ’g Co. v. McKelvey, No. 4:05 CV 00625, 2005 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 9476, at *17-18 (N.D. Ohio May 16, 2005). But that is not the type of access Plaintiffs

seek here. Instead, they only want the same access that all members of the press corps receive to

cover the Governor’s events. On that they have a compelling claim worthy of vindication.


9

B. Salem Media and Jacobson are likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim against Defendants for discriminating against her based on her viewpoint. (Count II)

The First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause prohibits government from

discriminating among citizens on the basis of viewpoint. Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union

Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 394 (1993) (“The First Amendment forbids the government to

regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others.”). This

prohibition on viewpoint discrimination extends to denying press access based on a reporter’s

content or viewpoint. Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 129 (“arbitrary or content-based criteria for press pass

issuance are prohibited under the first amendment”). See McBride v. Vill. of Michiana, 100 F.3d

457, 461-62 (6th Cir. 1996) (retaliating against a reporter because of the stories she reports by

barring her from equal access violates the First Amendment); Quad-City Cmty. News Serv., Inc. v.

Jebens, 334 F. Supp. 8, 13 (S.D. Iowa 1971).

“A discrimination against a news organization based upon the perceived inaccuracy or bias

of its news coverage is a content-based discrimination. . . . Especially is this so when the

governmental official enforcing the discrimination is himself the subject of the news reporting . .

. . In such circumstances, the official’s discriminatory actions seek to promote an interest with

which the government may not concern itself at all - control by an official of what is said and

written about him.” Times-Picayune Pub. Corp. v. Lee, Civil Action No. 88-1325, 1988 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 3506, at *25-26 (E.D. La. Apr. 15, 1988). Accord United Teachers of Dade, 213 F. Supp.

2d at 1373; Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. Periodical Correspondents’ Assoc., 365 F.

Supp. 18, 22-23 (D.D.C. 1973), rev’d on other grounds, 515 F.2d 1341 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (“A free

press is undermined if the access of certain reporters to facts relating to the public’s business is

limited merely because they advocate a particular viewpoint.”).


10

This is just what has happened here. Jacobson was consistently asking hard questions about

the Governor’s policies and the First Family that made the Governor and his press secretary

uncomfortable during his press conferences. So first she was kicked out of the press room and

access was limited to two pool reporters, neither of whom were from her industry (radio

broadcasting). Then, three days after Jacobson broke a story about the Governor’s family staying

at a family farm in Wisconsin, at the very next press conference she was blocked then permanently

barred from asking her questions.

In her email to Jacobson stating the fact of her ban, Governor Pritzker’s press secretary

said that she was no longer permitted to participate because she was no longer “an impartial

journalist.” (Jacobson Affidavit X; Complaint Exhibit 1). The Governor doubled-down on her

decision, defending it to another journalist saying her remarks at the rally were “taking an extreme

position” and that she “represents a talk show that has a particular point of view” (Jacobson

Affidavit X). When a government official sets himself up as the judge of his own press coverage

to determine when particular reporters are no longer “impartial,” he is admitting viewpoint

discrimination. When he defends his decision to kick out journalist because she has “a particular

point of view” and what he believes is an “extreme position” in her editorial stance, he is basing

his decision on the content of her speech and his unwillingness to tolerate her views.

The government has no interest in ensuring only “impartial” news media can cover public

affairs. In fact, quite the opposite: the First Amendment protects a strong, independent press corps

that embraces a wide variety of viewpoints. This stems from our “profound national commitment

to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that

it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government

and public officials.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).


11

Any attempt by the government to ensure “impartial” news media inevitably results in

viewpoint discrimination. When government officials get in the business of deciding for

themselves which news outlets are “impartial” in their coverage of those officials, they are making

impermissible judgment calls about each journalist’s reporting and viewpoint. And those

journalists whose viewpoint they don’t like, that often file stories or ask questions that are

considered critical, or who engage in investigative reporting of an incumbent’s administration that

uncovers embarrassing facts — those journalists are deemed “unfair” and “biased” and thus denied

press access. Here, the governor can come up with no other journalist who was barred from press

conferences based on his or her lack of impartiality. Nor can the governor provide any examples

of a journalist being barred because he or she lacked impartiality by openly supporting the

governor. This case is a government official picking winners and losers among the press corps

based on the content of their questions.

This sort of picking-and-choosing who is “fair” or “impartial” is unconstitutional:

“Requiring a newspaper’s reporter to pass a subjective compatibility-accuracy test as a condition

precedent to the right of that reporter to gather news is no different in kind from requiring a

newspaper to submit its proposed news stories for editing as a condition precedent to the right of

that newspaper to have a reporter cover the news. Each is a form of censorship.” Borreca, 369 F.

Supp. at 909-10 (finding against a mayor who excluded a particular reporter from press

conferences). Borreca continued, “[a] free press is not necessarily an angelic press. Newspapers

take sides, especially in political contests. Newspaper reporters are not always accurate and

objective.” Id. at 910. The appropriate response, however, is for the government official to dispute

or criticize the reporting. But the government official crosses a line “when criticism transforms


12

into an attempt to use the powers of governmental office to intimidate or to discipline the press or

one of its members. . .” Id. That is the line Governor Pritzker has crossed in this case.

C. Salem Media and Jacobson are likely to succeed on their Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for violating their right to equal protection of the laws. (Count III)

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws against

arbitrary or unfair enforcement by state governments. It is a violation of that protection for the

government to grant access to one news organization and deny it to another. McCoy v. Providence

Journal Co., 190 F.2d 760, 766 (1st Cir. 1951); Westinghouse Broad. Co. v. Dukakis, 409 F. Supp.

895, 897 (D. Mass. 1976) (same). See Capital Cities Media, Inc. v. Chester, 797 F.2d 1164, 1176

(3d Cir. 1986) (en banc) (similar). Here again the government must show a compelling interest to

justify its classification. Quad-City Cmty. News Serv., Inc., 334 F. Supp. at 15. Again, the Governor

cannot meet this standard — there is no compelling interest which justifies his decision to exclude

Jacobson while permitting access to all others.

D. Salem Media and Jacobson are likely to succeed on their Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for violating their right to due process of the laws. (Count IV)

Access to the press corps is a First Amendment liberty interest that once granted cannot be

revoked without due process of law. Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 130-31 (“This first amendment interest

undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law.”). Accord

Karem, 404 F. Supp. 3d 203 (applying Sherrill’s due-process holdings).

In order to comport with due process, a government official must first publicize “the actual

standard employed in determining whether an otherwise eligible journalist [would] obtain a White

House press pass” so judges, journalists, and the public can determine whether an appropriate

denial has been made. Id. at 130. See id. at 131 (“articulate and publish an explicit and meaningful


13

standard governing denial of White House press passes”). Accord Getty Images News Servs., 193

F. Supp. 2d at 121 (same); Quad-City Community News Service, Inc., 334 F. Supp. at 17 (same).

This is the vagueness component of Sherrill’s holding.

Second, when an official believes that standard has been violated, he must provide the

journalist “notice of the factual bases for denial, an opportunity for the applicant to respond to

these, and a final written statement of the reasons for denial.” Sherrill, 569 F.2d at 130. This is the

procedural due-process component of Sherrill’s holding.

The Defendants failed in both respects here. At no time has the Governor’s Office

circulated to Jacobson any policy or professional standard by which it expects members of the

press corps to behave to retain their access. Second, when she chose to revoke Jacobson’s access

the Governor’s press secretary issued a simple email edict with no invitation to respond or to seek

review. In other words, the Governor’s decision failed both prongs of due process to which

Jacobson was entitled.

E. Salem Media is likely to succeed on its First Amendment claim against Defendants for violating its right select its own representatives in the press room. (Count V)

Any journalist only has a right to sit in the briefing room as a representative of a particular

outlet, station, publication, or website. And news organizations have a First Amendment free-press

right to select their representatives in a press conference without interference from the government.

“To the extent the publisher's choice of writers affects the expressive content of its newspaper, the

First Amendment protects that choice.” McDermott ex rel. NLRB v. Ampersand Publ’g, LLC, 593

F.3d 950, 962 (9th Cir. 2010). See Claybrooks v. ABC, Inc., 898 F. Supp. 2d 986, 1000 (M.D.

Tenn. 2012) (same, as to television show production).

This might be phrased as a “publisher autonomy” doctrine under the First Amendment’s

free press clause similar to the “church autonomy” doctrine under the free exercise clause.


14

Religious institutions have a right to determine their own leaders, teachers, and preachers without

government interference, because those employees shape and deliver the church’s

content/message. Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, 280 U.S. 1, 10 (1929); Hosanna-Tabor

Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171, 186 (2012).

The same is true here — news organization editors and publishers have a right to make

their own decisions about which of their reporters will cover a news story or event. Miami Herald

Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974). Accord Turner Broad. Sys. v. FCC, 512 U.S.

622, 653 (1994) (“Tornillo affirmed an essential proposition: The First Amendment protects the

editorial independence of the press.”). Editors may assign a reporter based on how skeptical he

will be of an elected official, or his reputation for investigative journalism and relentless digging,

or because the publisher has invested significant resources in building the reporter’s personal

brand. A government official should not interfere with a news organization’s editorial choices

absent exceptional circumstances.

III. Plaintiffs and the public will suffer substantial harm without preliminary relief, unlike the Defendants, who will only suffer minor inconvenience at most.

The balance of harms favors the Plaintiff. First, the harm to Plaintiffs is substantial:

Certainly the exclusion of particular reporters from the news presented each morning at on-the-record press conferences, which hundreds of other reporters are eligible to attend, affects the content and quality of the news that is reported as well as access to the sources of news. Moreover, it is important to recognize that this is not a single, sporadic refusal of access. Exclusion from the press galleries constitutes a permanent disadvantage with regard to the gathering of news and has a significant impact when measured in terms of the First Amendment, both upon the publication excluded and others in similar situations.

Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 365 F. Supp. at 26.

Second, the exclusion harms not only Jacobson and Salem Media, but the public at large

as well. “Exclusion of an individual reporter also carries with it the danger that granting


15

favorable treatment to certain members of the media allows the government to influence the type

of substantive media coverage that public events will receive, which effectively harms the

public.” Huminski, 386 F.3d at 147. Here, “the public interest will be well served by [injunctive]

relief.” United Teachers of Dade, 213 F. Supp. 2d at 1376.

Moreover, considering the effect on the other side, the Governor will suffer no harm,

“merely involve some minor inconvenience to the [Governor’s] press staff.” Cable News Network,

Inc. v. Am. Broad. Cos., 518 F. Supp. 1238, 1246 (N.D. Ga. 1981) (granting a preliminary

injunction to CNN ordering the White House to include television reporters in the regular press

pool for limited-access presidential events on the same basis as print reporters). The inclusion of

Jacobson requires nothing more than restoring a single name to the press list; there is no harm to

the Governor; only the slightest inconvenience to staff.

CONCLUSION

As all the factors are met, Plaintiffs respectfully request that their motion be granted.


SALEM MEDIA OF ILLINOIS, LLC and AMY JACOBSON By: /s/ Daniel R. Suhr Daniel R. Suhr Jeffrey M. Schwab Liberty Justice Center 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone (312) 263-7668 Facsimile (312) 263-7702 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs




Plaintiffs, No. v. J.B. PRITZKER, et al., Declaration of Amy Jacobson

Defendants.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare that the following facts are true, to the best of my

knowledge, information, and belief:

1. I am a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

2. I graduated from the University of Iowa, Phi Beta Kappa, with a degree in broadcasting

in 1991.

3. After graduating, I worked as a television reporter for stations in Alexandra (MN),

Tucson, El Paso, and Detroit.

4. I returned to my home state of Illinois in 1996 to work as an on-air news reporter for

NBC-5 WMAQ (Chicago).

5. While on television, I won a regional Emmy Award and was nominated for an additional

six regional Emmy’s.

6. I transitioned from television to radio upon joining WLS in 2008.

7. I moved from WLS to WIND AM 560 in 2010. There, I am cohost of “Chicago’s

Morning Answer.” I spend four hours every morning on air delivering the news along

with insight, opinion, and analysis.

�� Case: 1:20-cv-03212 Document #: 2-2 Filed: 06/01/20 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:32

1

8. I also routinely contribute to the station’s other shows and news updates as a field

reporter.

9. I have covered numerous major media events for AM 560, including election night

coverage in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018; former Governor Rod Blagojevich’s final press

conference before entering prison, and his first press conference upon his return from

prison; and the 2016 presidential debate in St. Louis.

10. I also make and break news on my social media channels.

11. I began attending the Governor’s daily COVID-19 press conference on Friday, April 17,

2020.

12. On May 14, I asked the Governor at the press conference about his furlough of over 1,000

prisoners during the pandemic, including 64 convicted murderers.

13. On May 13, I asked about the disconnect between the Governor’s legal position in various

COVID-related cases and a 2001 Attorney General opinion given the opposite

interpretation of his powers under the emergency management.

14. On April 18, I asked the Governor about the difference between his plan for reopening the

state and the President’s plan. I asked two follow-up questions about Chicago lakefront

access for bikers and joggers, after which the governor’s press secretary cut off in-person

questioning.

15. After asking those three questions on April 18, I watched the governor’s press secretary

Jordan Abudayyeh appear to become agitated with my line of questioning. I heard her say

at the end of the press conference that “things in these briefings are going to change.” I

approached her for clarification, and she did not elaborate.


2

16. On April 19, I received an email sent to all reporters from Abudayyeh notifying us that the

press conference that afternoon was moving to a pooled coverage system “to further ensure

we’re appropriately following social distancing guidelines.” A copy of the email is

attached to this affidavit as Exhibit 1.

17. Abudayyeh put this system in place after a month of in-person briefings where reporters

were spaced out in the room. Under the pool system, the press room was re-configured to

end the physical presence of all reporters except two pool reporters, one for print and one

for broadcast. Radio did not receive separate pool representation. Under the new system,

non-pool reporters were required to submit questions to the pool reporters, who would then

relay the questions to the Governor and his staff during the briefings

18. Under this new system, I was invited to participate live in the press conferences via

videoconference technology (WebX) and submitted my question to be read by the pool

reporters to the Governor.

19. The new system made it much harder to ask follow-up questions.

20. On April 23, 2020, I asked the Governor about the State of Illinois being forced to

declare bankruptcy and he responded that “Amy clearly doesn’t understand what happens

when an organization goes through a bankruptcy and out the other side.”

21. On April 29, 2020, the Governor corrected a previous statement he had made in a press

conference in response to a question I asked about President Trump’s phases.

22. On May 15, 2020, I reported that the First Family was remaining overnight at their horse

farm in Wisconsin. A copy of the tweet is attached as Exhibit 2.


3

23. On May 16, 2020, I was one of several speakers at a “Reopen Illinois” rally outside the

Thompson Center in downtown Chicago sponsored by Freedom Movement USA, a

nonprofit grassroots civic organization.

24. I sometimes speak at public events and on news/talk programs other than my own to share

my reporting and editorial views.

25. I undertake these speaking engagements within my employer’s policies governing

employee conduct.

26. While at the rally, I gave remarks that repeated views I had given on my radio show many

times previously.

27. While at the rally, I observed two people holding signs making Nazi references. On My

Twitter that day I called those signs “offensive,” saying “There is NO need for this.” A

copy of the tweet is attached as Exhibit 3.

28. On Monday, May 18, 2020, I attempted to participate in the Governor’s videoconference

press conference, but the question I submitted to the pool reporters was not read.

29. I reported that day that I was “BLOCKED from @Gov Pritzker’s daily briefings.” A copy

of the tweet is attached as Exhibit 4.

30. Later that same day, I received an email from the Governor’s press secretary, Jordan

Abudayyeh, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 5.

31. Since Abudayyeh’s email, I have been blocked from participating in the WebX

videoconference like other journalists.

32. My inability to participate and ask questions of the Governor during his press conferences

on the same basis as other journalists significantly hampers my ability to do my job as AM


4

560’s reporter covering the most important story happening in Illinois right now, namely

the Governor’s ongoing response to COVID-19.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing

is true and correct.

Dated: May 31, 2020

__________________________ Amy Jacobson, declarant


5

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 2


6

EXHIBIT 3


7

EXHIBIT 4


8

EXHIBIT 5




Plaintiffs, No. v. J.B. PRITZKER, et al., Declaration of Jeff Reisman

Defendants.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare that the following facts are true, to the best of my

knowledge, information, and belief:

1. I am a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

2. I am the Regional Vice President, General Manager, responsible for AM 560 “The

Answer” and AM 1160 “Hope For Your Life.”

3. Salem Media of Illinois, LLC, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Salem Media Group, Inc.,

located in Camarillo, California.

4. In my opinion, Salem Media Group is America’s leading radio broadcaster, Internet

content provider, and magazine and book publisher targeting audiences interested in

Christian and family-themed content and conservative values.

5. Salem owns and operates 96 radio stations, with 59 stations in the nation’s top 25 top

markets – and 28 stations in the top 10 markets, including AM 560.

6. As the station manager for AM 560, I am responsible for supervising all of our

employees and programs, including Amy Jacobson and “Chicago’s Morning Answer.”


2

7. Amy is a crucial part of our news team. In addition to cohosting our morning show, Amy

is routinely assigned as a field reporter to cover major news events and press conferences

on behalf of AM 560, especially those related to Illinois politics.

8. Salem Media relies on Amy in the Chicago media market, and we give her our prized

morning drive-time slot because our listeners rely on her for news, opinion, and insight

into Illinois politics.

9. Salem Media permits its journalists to take public speaking events outside those

scheduled directly by the station because they offer opportunities to connect with current

listeners in person and to reach new potential listeners.

10. Amy’s inability to participate as a journalist in Governor Pritzker’s press events and press

conferences puts AM 560 at a competitive disadvantage in the news/talk market in

Chicago. Our listeners appreciate that Amy participates in these opportunities, asking

tough but fair questions of elected officials and decision-makers. Without that access,

listeners may migrate to other stations whose reporters they believe are doing a better job

asking the questions they themselves would ask of their public leaders.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing

is true and correct.

Dated: May _____, 2020

__________________________ Jeff Reisman, declarant

��

��


1



Plaintiffs,

No. 1:20-cv-3212 v. J.B. PRITZKER, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois, and JORDAN ABUDAYYEH, in her official capacity as the Governor’s press secretary,

Affiliate Disclosure Statement

Defendants.

Pursuant to N.D. Ill. Local R. 3.2, Plaintiff Salem Media of Illinois, LLC, states that:

Salem Media of Illinois, LLC, is a limited liability company with two members: SCA License Corp. and Salem Radio Operations, LLC. Salem Radio Operations, LLC, is a limited liability company with a single member: Salem Communications Holding Corporation. Dated: June 1, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

SALEM MEDIA OF ILLINOIS, LLC By: /s/ Daniel R. Suhr Daniel R. Suhr Jeffrey M. Schwab Liberty Justice Center 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Telephone (312) 263-7668 Facsimile (312) 263-7702 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs


Documents

1-1 Civil Cover Sheet€¦ · 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 375 False Claims Act 120 Marine 310 Airplane 530 General 720 Labor/Management